CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   670 7.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Holomiov v. Moldova (application no. 30649/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the authorities’ failure to provide Mr Holomiov with medical care appropriate to his conditions; a violation of Article 5 § 1   (right to liberty and security) of the Convention; a violation of article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Victor Holomiov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău.   The applicant was arrested on 24   January   2002 on suspicion of having aided and abetted bribery. Two days later, he was remanded in custody by Centru District Court. His detention was prolonged several times until 23 May 2002. After that date, the applicant remained in detention without having his detention warrant prolonged. He submitted numerous requests for release relying, in particular, on his medical condition and on the impossibility of receiving appropriate medical care in prison due to a lack of specialised doctors and medication, but they were all rejected.   According to medical certificates submitted by the applicant he suffered from a number of serious illnesses including: chronic hepatitis, second-degree hydronephrosis, chronic bilateral pyelonephritis with functional impairment of the right kidney, hydronephrosis of the right kidney with functional impairment, stones in the urinary tract, somatoform disorder, chronic renal failure, head trauma and generalised anxiety disorder. On several occasions he was prescribed treatment in hospital and surgery on his right kidney. In 2002 and 2003 an urologist from the Central Republican Hospital recommended urgent surgery. The doctor advised that a delay might result in the serious degradation of his kidney. A similar recommendation was made by the head doctor of the prison hospital. The recommendation was however never followed up.   The applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the lack of adequate medical treatment. His complaint was rejected and he was informed in a letter dated 23 September 2003 that he had been offered medical treatment in accordance with the “modest possibilities” of the prison medical service and with the medication brought by his relatives.   In October 2003 the head doctor of the prison hospital informed the applicant’s lawyer that there were no urologists, cardiologists and neurosurgeons among the doctors of the prison hospital.   In November 2004, the applicant started a hunger strike to protest against his being treated in the prison.   In December 2005 the District Court accepted the applicant’s argument that his detention was incompatible with his medical condition and decided to replace his remand in custody with house arrest.   The applicant is still under house arrest and the criminal proceedings are still pending.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 August 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .                 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicant alleged that he was detained in inhuman and degrading conditions and that he was not provided with proper medical care. He further complained that he was detained unlawfully after his detention warrant expired. Finally, he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 3, Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the parties disagreed about the availability of medical care in prison. It found, however, that the core issue was not the lack of medical care in general but rather the lack of adequate medical care for the applicant’s particular conditions.   The Court stressed that merely having the applicant seen by doctors and hospitalised in the prison was not enough. In that connection, the Court noted that the applicant was prescribed urgent surgery on one of his kidneys in 2002 and 2003 but that the doctor’s recommendations were never followed up. The authorities failed to act, despite the fact that one of the doctors stressed the seriousness of the applicant’s condition and pointed to the risk that the applicant could loose his kidney if surgery was not performed.   Moreover, the Court noted that the domestic courts accepted that there was a lack of appropriate medical care during the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s remand in custody was for that reason changed to home arrest.   The Court noted that there were no doctors specialised in the treatment of the applicant’s condition either in the prison or in the prison hospital. Furthermore, the letter from the Ministry of Justice stated that the treatment was inadequate and that the applicant had to rely on his relatives to obtain the necessary medication.   The Court concluded that, while suffering from serious kidney diseases entailing serious risks for his health, the applicant was detained for almost four years without appropriate medical care. The Court found that the applicant’s suffering constituted inhuman and degrading treatment and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 5 § 1 The Court found that the applicant’s detention after the expiry of his detention warrant issued on 23 May 2002 was not based on any legal provision. Accordingly, it found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   In view of that finding, the Court found that it did not need to examine the applicant’s complaint regarding the justification of his detention.   Article 6 § 1 The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted over four years, nine months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Judge Pavlovschi expressed a partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.